check_references

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, open-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds a real behavioral nuance — the number of comparison levels depends on whether citation details are supplied — but the 'levels' are never defined, so the agent cannot act on that distinction. No return shape or failure behavior is described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the accepted-input forms front-loaded and the usage cue last. The unexplained 'level 2'/'levels 1 and 3' phrasing adds words whose meaning is not resolved, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only checking tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond read-only/open-world, the definition covers inputs and usage but omits what a check actually returns (pass/fail? per-level verdicts?) and leaves 'level 1/2/3' undefined. An agent can call it, but cannot anticipate the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Reported schema coverage is 0% at the top level, so the description must carry weight, and it does tell the agent that a lone identifier and full citation details are both valid inputs. However, it never explains the relationship between 'raw' and the individual fields, nor how 'identifier' formats (DOI/pmid/arXiv/isbn) are consumed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('check') and resource ('references') and clarifies the accepted inputs (identifier, citation details, or both). It does not name the sibling check_manuscript, though the closing sentence ('sources of a report you wrote') hints at the distinction. The unexplained 'level 1/2/3' jargon keeps it from being fully self-explanatory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete triggering condition ('Use this for the sources of a report you wrote') and specifies which comparison applies under each input mode (citation details vs. identifier alone). It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.